New from Cambridge University Press!

Edited By Keith Allan and Kasia M. Jaszczolt

This book "fills the unquestionable need for a comprehensive and up-to-date handbook on the fast-developing field of pragmatics" and "includes contributions from many of the principal figures in a wide variety of fields of pragmatic research as well as some up-and-coming pragmatists."

AUTHOR: Jila GhomeshiTITLE: Grammar Matters SUBTITLE: The Social Significance of How We Use Language SERIES TITLE: Semaphore Series PUBLISHER: Arbeiter Ring Publishing (ARP)YEAR: 2010

Mae Hurley, unaffiliated scholar

SUMMARY

Grammar matters, but to who? Or should that be whom? If you care about whichform is 'better', Jila Ghomeshi's short and sharp book on language is targetedsquarely at you.

'Grammar matters' is a book that asks its audience to review their 'pet peeves'about the English language and reject the prescriptivist perspective thatcommonly informs it in wider society. The book outlines how different forms oflanguage are associated with social judgements like 'good' and 'bad', and warnsus not to take the moral high ground in our attitudes towards others becausethey are not formed on reason but prejudice.

Grammar is the 'operating system' by which we put together sounds, words andsentences and a written grammar is something we can consult to explain theworkings of a language. The issue arises, the author declares, between a grammarbased on how language is used ('descriptivism'), and one that is based on howlanguage ought to be used ('prescriptivism'). The latter kind, prescriptivegrammars, give license to value judgements and lead to negative socialconsequences, such as outright snobbery from those dishing it out to insecurityabout language use for those on the receiving end.

The popular attitudes that some members of the public hold about language (''poorgrammar is attributable to ignorance, laziness, or lack of education and istherefore justifiably the object of public scorn'', p.9) are preferences andbiases, Ghomeshi says, and should only be recognised as such.

The main sections of the book are devoted to outlining the specific units oflanguage that are associated with value judgements, and then presenting threefallacies that lie at the core of language prescriptivism - the fallacies oflogic, precision and authority.

Ghomeshi begins with the smallest unit, sounds, to review why pronunciation andaccents matter and goes on to cover spelling, punctuation, parts of speech,dialects and languages. For each unit, she discusses the variations we hear anduse (for example, different pronunciations of 'dew', spelling 'colour' or'color', choosing to use 'firefighter' instead of 'fireman') and questions whycertain forms are marked as prestigious, some forms stigmatised, and other formsneither prestigious nor stigmatised. There's a section on 'politically correctlanguage' for word choices and why these changes matter to particular kinds ofpeople. Why has there been a shift to gender-neutral language? Do minoritieshave a right to 'reclaim' names and labels applied to their groups? The trueanswers lie in ''the degree to which a change of name makes us uncomfortable'' and''reflects our attitudes and feelings towards the group it names'' (p.42). Often,it is more about who is proposing the changes, and which social groups areassociated with standard and non-standard forms of language, than the actualchange itself.

Each of the prescriptivist fallacies of logic, precision and authority areaddressed in turn. Ghomeshi points out that a popular conception about languageis that it's logical by nature. Logic is linked to systematic regularities inlanguage (because how can a language be logical but irregular?) and Englishfails dismally with many kinds of irregular verbs, reflexive pronouns that buildon both accusative and genitive forms, and mismatch between spelling andpronunciation, among other examples. English is also imprecise, because ofpolysemy, metonymy and metaphors. There's ambiguity among closely relatedmeanings and substituting one term to stand for another is not what one wouldcall a precise use of language. Politeness, Ghomeshi shows, calls for all sortsof imprecise uses (for example, using third-person forms to address someone ofhigh social status, preferring indirectness over being too direct) and this iswhere language becomes bound to social conventions. The fallacy of authoritysimply rests on most people being ''unable to identify where the rules of grammarcome from'' (p.71). Ghomeshi traces the first prescriptive grammars to the 18thcentury and argues that prescriptivism's rise in popularity over the next fewhundred years is due to the socially aspiring middle classes seeking out the'marketable assets' of good pronunciation and grammar. In modern society we havecertain professions who oversee and enforce the standard variety of English(such as teachers, copy editors and those in media), but rather than being'experts' on language, they mediate norms of use. New and creative uses are'incorporated into the canon' of language acceptability, and this is alwaysevolving.

The final sections of the book emphasise what language means on social terms.Why does non-standard grammar persist then, despite the standard being taught inschools? People choose the way they speak, Ghomeshi says, because it marks whothey are and who they want to belong to. There's solidarity in non-conformityand anti-authority. Taking a descriptive view on language is not about 'anythinggoes', but acknowledging and appreciating language variation at its fullest.While not a supporter of prescriptivism, Ghomeshi believes in the usefulness ofa standard for communication in society, as long as it's seen amongst the widerbackdrop of variation.

She concludes by providing the social and political reality to the question 'Whydoes grammar matter?' It matters because tradition matters. History matters.Distinguishing ourselves socially matters. We fear change and change that leadsto loss. The author shows that everyone clearly has an interest and investmentin their own language use.

EVALUATION

At just over 100 pages, this short book has much to recommend itself to itstarget audience of 'grammar fans'. Ghomeshi addresses many popular complaintsand sentiments found in newspapers and talkback radio in a succinct andinformative manner. Her arguments are sound, backed up by multiple examples, andfew readers with prescriptivist tendencies should finish the book feeling thesame way they began.

The strength of the book lies in consistently placing the English language inits social and historical context, and also comparing it with other languages.The discussion on the origins of the English writing system (pp.54-57) and therise of prescriptive grammars (pp.71-73) are well-explained; in fact, the linescomparing how long we've had language, writing systems and prescriptive grammarsrespectively (p.72) places the current status quo into perspective and showsthat prescriptivism isn't inherent nor preordained.

I like the structure of the book and how it starts with the smallest units oflanguage and works its way up to languages as a whole and the issues ofmultilingualism and language rights. Using contemporary examples by referring to2008 presidential candidate Sarah Palin, music artists Rihanna and Timbaland,and recent debates about language policy in the US, to name a few, Ghomeshishows how relevant, modern and consistently evolving language can be. Iparticularly enjoyed her discussion on the increasing use of 'you' to stand for'I' in 'celebrity-speak', where people appear to be speaking generically butactually are describing situations unique to themselves as celebrities ordistinguished achievers of some kind (pp.67-69). Examples and tables in the bookare set out clearly, with arrows to show correspondence between forms, and thismakes it easy for any reader new to linguistics to follow her arguments. Many ofthe arguments presented in the book would likely appear in a first-yearlinguistics class, but part of the author's aim was that these discussions movefrom university into the wider public sphere.

One of Ghomeshi's key tenets in this book is that we're happy to make judgementsabout people based on the kind of language they use, and even ''feel smug whiledoing so'' (p.10). Not all of us do, but the book is a helpful reminder that wecannot, and we should not, automatically link intelligence to language use andeven political positions. One interesting discussion deals specifically withpolitics (pp.82-83). I was relieved to read that it was ridiculous to linklanguage dialects with political positions after the author posited the idea ofprescriptivists as 'language conservatives' who support upholding traditionalvalues, while descriptivists were more inclined to be progressive and 'languageliberals' (the publisher of this book, incidentally, 'leans left').

The book is clearly intended for a Canadian audience, so international readersmay find some of the examples more specific to North America (for example,discussions about pronunciations, student categories of 'jocks' and 'jells' athigh school). A reference or more discussion would have been helpful to theclaim that pronouncing 'Iran' and 'Iraq', with the first syllable as 'eye',could signal ''greater distance from the country and its people'', as ''USpresidents willing to wage war in the Middle East have tended to use the 'eye'pronunciation'' (p.26). A recent study (Hall-Lew et al. 2010) connected politicalaffiliation with pronunciation of the second vowel of 'Iraq', but findings onthe first vowel were not as clearcut. There's also an unfortunate typo for 'partparticiple' instead of 'past participle' in the discussion on irregular verbs(p. 51). But these are minor issues in such a concise and well-written book.

A consistent anti-prescriptivist stance lies throughout the book, a positionthat most linguists will tend to agree with. But I suspect the wider community(and in particular the target audience of this book) likes and prefersdefinitive answers for the right context. Ghomeshi argues the case very wellagainst making judgemental calls, those based on little else but prejudice, butcan linguists offer sound judgement calls about language to the public? Ghomeshisays ''the relationship between a prescriptive grammarian and a linguist is likethe relationship between an etiquette expert and an anthropologist'' (p.72).While linguistics (and anthropology) can provide insight into the nature ofbeing human, people still want advice on what's most appropriate for aparticular context. The prescriptive grammarian sells and the sustainedpopularity of a book like 'The elements of style' (Strunk & White 2000) fulfilsthis need for guidance, whether or not linguists agree with its recommendations.There's demand for clarity in language, particularly in public discourse, andthere's also room for linguists to speak louder to shape public perceptiontowards a more informed view of language.

Overall, 'Grammar matters' packs a lot of punch into its pocketbook size. Forlinguists, this book is a perfect response for every time you tell someoneyou're a linguist and they start revealing their pet hates about English. It's abook that promotes linguistics, explains the social significance of language andencourages reflection on our own prejudices. It should certainly be handed outto those who relished 'Eats, shoots and leaves' (Truss 2003). Keen readers whoenjoy 'Grammar matters' can move onto heftier popular linguistics books, like'How language works' (Crystal 2006), 'The power of Babel' (McWhorter 2001) and'Metaphors we live by' (Lakoff & Johnson 2003). Better still, they may considerdegrees in linguistics.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER:
Mae Hurley is an editor in health communications with an honours degree in
linguistics from the University of Sydney. She's taught English as a
Second/Foreign Language, tutored Cross-cultural Communication and consulted
to business and government on plain language. Her research interests
include discourse analysis, health literacy, systemic functional
linguistics and multiculturalism. She writes about language issues on her
blog: www.misslinguistics.newsvine.com.